I think the Plans are off for tonight...Obama should talk a lot about Kennedy and then announce a summer push for health care reform for all.

I would imagine he would say something like this:

1.  Our deepest condolences for Ted Kennedy

2.  We're going to push forward and continue because this country deserves real change

3.  Unity unity unity

In short, I think he's going to "act like he's been there before".  He's already won, and everyone knows it, so why go around touting it?

At least not that carefully.  Are you trying to suggest he'd tell black people to move to the "back of the hall" so I can get more white faces up front?

Now, that said, I think there is strategy to his being in Iowa but I think it has more to do with time zones than skin color.

acknowledgment of the fact that the race is over. Hopefully we can move on to beating McCain.

I can't imagine going to Iowa has a single thing to do with the racial composition that will be behind him while speaking.  It just doesn't make any sense, since Oregon is 90+% white and only about 2% black (Asians and Hispanics are larger minorities there).  Iowa is all about the symbolism of ending the primary and beginning the general election.

You know, it's rather sad that this myth has to be debunked in the first place.  It's like all of the white states he won before the Appalachia-related primaries suddenly mean nothing.  Do people really have such short attention spans?

I see where you're going here, but I think you miss the point.

It's not which demographics Obama can attract versus Clinton, it's which battleground states each candidate can swing to the blue column come November.

When you look at the states won so far by each campaign, Obama comes up short.

If not it won't matter much in the larger picture. Obama as already focused on McPain.

You've got to be kidding?  To pretend that the white vote in Oregon is anything like the white vote in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Indiana is ridiculous. Him winning Oregon tonight does nothing to prove he has overcome "demographics is destiny".  If he would've compaigned in Kentucky and tried to narrow her lead there, THAT would have been compelling!

This has more to do with the symbolism of ending the pledged delegate race in the state that his ascendancy began than proving anything about white voters.

Obama knows people eat that kind of thing right up.

Male median income in Oregon: $41,536; Kentucky: $39,595; Female median income in Oregon: $32,390; Kentucky: $29,392

hmm seems to me Obama doesn't have a white working class problem.

The latest Gallup poll finds:

Armando did a whole analysis over at Talk Left.

Obama loses the white vote overwhelmingly with a few exceptions.

Of course he gets white voters, but he doesn't do well with them overall.

Just a fact.

Obama can spin all he wants but he needs to address this problem -- and bloggers contorting the facts are not going to help him address a true deficit he has that he needs to confront if he has any chance of winning in November.

Just because he wins Oregon doesn't mean he dopesn't have a problem.

He does. I listen to what people say in private and my head isn't in the sand.

"Obama will have notched another primary thanks to the broad support of whites, and pundits will be reminded that Obama did well with that demographic in Connecticut, Maryland, Missouri, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin."

Many points:

1. Clinton nearly won MO on the strength of the outstate vote.

2. Connecticut has a yuppie-leaning Dem electorate.
   
3. 1/3 of Maryland's Dem primary electorate is black, so Obama didn't need too many more whites to even win. I'd have to check if Clinton won white Dems in this state, though.
   
4. Vermont is the Berkeley of the east.
   
5. Virginia has a yuppie-leaning Dem electorate.
   
6. Wisconsin has a history of progressivism dating back to the early 20th century (Clinton did win white Dems in this open primary); Oregon is probably that same progressive mold for whatever reason.

I get the impression that a lot of people moved to Oregon back in the late 70s and early 80s just to get out of rat race of earning more and more money, so to say that the median income is less should come with the caveat that some Oregonians prefer it that way.

play it up, barack play it up.

CNN was interviewing voters in Kentucky this morning.  Asked what advice the obviously "hard working" 60ish gentleman had for the candidates:

To Hillary: Stop lying.

To Barack:  Stop being so black.

At least he was honest!  Why even try in Kentucky and West Virginia?  Lying?  That is a character flaw a person can overcome.  Skin pigmentation?  Not so much.  

   

It was Iowa when it changed. Not only did Obama win but Clinton was 3rd. He took a delegate lead that never left. So tonight we complete one of the circles. The wider circle of SD's is closing.
They will cue SD's between now and 6/3.
Kennedy should be the focus...the Iowa presence will speak for itself...
As an Edwards supporter, I too was not ready to realize how focused and ready Obama was. I am certainly aware now. To have a bi-racial man barely defeat a woman to become our candidate still has not really sunken in. January 2001 marked the beginning of perhaps the ugliest chapter in our nations history. January 2009 will in fact be a new dawn.

In Oregon, the median household income is $41,000, and 10 percent of households report annual income in excess of $100,000. Twenty-six percent of Oregon homes are valued in excess of $200,000.

Comparing by education achievement: 25 percent of Oregonians have college degrees; 17 percent of Kentuckians do.

nice overview on KY by the ChiTribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/chi-whites-obama-080520,0,7363123.st ory

oregon - poor, white???? come on! you need to break down where Obama wins and where he loses in Oregon. If he wins Oregon by winning the cities (Portland, Eugene), college towns (Corvallis) and silicon valley of the north (Willamette Valley) then this just strengthens the current argument against Obama.